Murolet IP, LLC v. Schindler Holding, Ltd. et al.
Infringement action filed 30 Oct 2020 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 31 Mar 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US8196711B2US8316997B2US8286755B2US8172044B2US8162109B2
- Case no.
- 6:20-cv-01011
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 30 Oct 2020 – 31 Mar 2023
- Duration
- 882 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Elevator group control system · Elevator system · Elevator system which limits the number of destination call registrations to be allocated to the single car · Group management controller of elevator including limit value setting means for setting a limit value for limiting a count of car calls
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Elevator system
An elevator system is obtained which is capable of assigning a suitable car by taking into consideration a change of a maximum speed or an acceleration according to the result of prediction of a change of a car load or a moving distance with respect to a hall call. In the elevator system having a group management control device (20), provision is made for a destination floor registration unit (11) that registers a destination floor according to a call into a call registration device (10) at the time of call registration, and an assignment control unit (21) that assigns a suitable car to a destination call registration request from the call registration device (10). The assignment control unit (21) includes a prediction time calculation unit (22), and calculates a change of the moving distance of each car after the call assignment based on the destination floor, and at the same time calculates each floor arrival prediction time of each car using a speed or an acceleration thereof according to a calculated value of the change of the moving distance.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 12 Jun 2012
- Est. expiry
- 16 Jul 2028
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- TOKURA, SAKURAKO
- Classification
- B66B1/18
- Prosecution counsel
- Goldberg Segalla LLP
- Examiner
- SALATA, ANTHONY
Elevator group control system
Provided is an elevator group control system which is excellent in convenience and can prevent a decrease in operation efficiency even when an elevator is used by a group of a plurality of persons. For this purpose, there are installed in an elevator hall a destination operating panel by use of which users register their destination floors before boarding and a group boarding registering device for registering that users use an elevator as a group. The number of users expected when users use an elevator as a group is stored beforehand in a user head-count storage section. When registration of a destination floor by use of the destination operating panel has been performed at the same time with registration of a group use by use of the group boarding registering device, a car to be assigned to a hall car call is determined on the basis of the number of users stored in the user head-count storage section.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 27 Nov 2012
- Est. expiry
- 17 Mar 2029
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MITSUDA, MASAYUKI · KOBA, YOSHIMASA · TAKESHIMA, KOJI
- Classification
- B66B1/20
- Prosecution counsel
- Goldberg Segalla LLP
- Examiner
- SALATA, ANTHONY
Also asserted in this case
3 moreThe docket lists 5 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 3 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Murolet IP, LLC
- Core tech
- B66B1/18B66B1/20
- Counsel
- Raymond W. Mort III · Ronald M. Daignault · Shailendra Maheshwari · Tedd W. Van Buskirk · Zachary H. Ellis
- Firm
- Daignault Iyer LLP, The Mort Law Firm PLLC
Schindler Holding, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jon W. Gurka · Travis R. Wimberly
- Firm
- Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP, Pirkey Barber PLLC
- Also named
- Schindler Elevator Corporation
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Raymond W. Mort III | Murolet IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Ronald M. Daignault | Murolet IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Shailendra Maheshwari | Murolet IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Tedd W. Van Buskirk | Murolet IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Zachary H. Ellis | Murolet IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jon W. Gurka | Schindler Holding, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Travis R. Wimberly | Schindler Holding, Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) filed by PlaintiffMurolet IP LLC a/k/a Murolet, LLC (“Plaintiff’) and Defendants Schindler Holding Ltd. a/k/a Schindler Group, AG and Schindler Elevator Corporation (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”). In the Motion, the Parties represent that they have resolved their claims for relief asserted in this litigation and request that the Court dismiss such claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The Court, having considered this request, is of the opinion that the Parties’ request for dismissal should be granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants be dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear their own attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and expenses.”
Case 6:20-cv-01011 · W.D. Tex. · closed 31 March 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 6:20-cv-01011?
6:20-cv-01011 is a patent infringement action brought by Murolet IP, LLC against Schindler Holding, Ltd., filed on 30 Oct 2020 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 31 March 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 6:20-cv-01011?
US8196711B2 (“Elevator system”), assigned to MUROLET IP LLC, currently active; US8316997B2 (“Elevator group control system”), assigned to MUROLET IP LLC, currently active; US8286755B2 (“Group management controller of elevator including limit value setting means for setting a limit value for limiting a count of car calls”), assigned to MUROLET IP LLC; US8172044B2 (“Elevator system”), assigned to MUROLET IP LLC; US8162109B2 (“Elevator system which limits the number of destination call registrations to be allocated to the single car”), assigned to MUROLET IP LLC. The record also lists Elevator group control system, Elevator system, Elevator system which limits the number of destination call registrations to be allocated to the single car and Group management controller of elevator including limit value setting means for setting a limit value for limiting a count of car calls.
How was case 6:20-cv-01011 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) filed by PlaintiffMurolet IP LLC a/k/a Murolet, LLC (“Plaintiff’) and Defendants Schindler Holding Ltd. a/k/a Schindler Group, AG and Schindler Elevator Corporation (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”). In the Motion, the Parties represent that they have resolved their claims for relief asserted in this litigation and request that the Court dismiss such claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The Court, having considered this request, is of the opinion that the Parties’ request for dismissal should be granted. IT IS T
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 6:20-cv-01011 take?
882 calendar days, from filing on 30 Oct 2020 to closure on 31 March 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:20-cv-01011?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Raymond W. Mort III, Ronald M. Daignault, Shailendra Maheshwari, Tedd W. Van Buskirk and Zachary H. Ellis are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Murolet IP. Jon W. Gurka and Travis R. Wimberly appear for defendant Schindler.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:20-cv-01011 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.